IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dur/durham/2007_09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Similarity Heuristic

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Read

    (Durham Business School)

  • Yael Grushka-Cockayne

    (London Business School)

Abstract

Decision makers are often called on to make snap judgments using fast-and- frugal decision rules called cognitive heuristics. Although early research into cognitive heuristics emphasized their limitations, more recent research has focused on their high level of accuracy. In this paper we investigate the performance a subset of the representativeness heuristic which we call the similarity heuristic. Decision makers who use it judge the likelihood that an instance is a member of one category rather than another by the degree to which it is similar to others in that category. We provide a mathematical model of the heuristic and test it experimentally in a trinomial environment. The similarity heuristic turns out to be a reliable and accurate choice rule and both choice and response time data suggest it is also how choices are made.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Read & Yael Grushka-Cockayne, 2007. "The Similarity Heuristic," Working Papers 2007_09, Durham University Business School.
    • Handle: RePEc:dur:durham:2007_09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dro.dur.ac.uk/10365
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grether, David M., 1992. "Testing bayes rule and the representativeness heuristic: Some experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 31-57, January.
    2. Camerer, Colin F, 1987. "Do Biases in Probability Judgment Matter in Markets? Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 981-997, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    2. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2014. "Uncovering unknown unknowns: Towards a Baconian approach to management decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 268-283.
    3. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Rabin, Matthew, 2000. "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4sw8n41t, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    5. Alexander Coutts, 2019. "Good news and bad news are still news: experimental evidence on belief updating," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 369-395, June.
    6. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Hügelschäfer, Sabine, 2012. "Faith in intuition and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 182-192.
    7. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Mihm, Maximilian, 2023. "An Axiomatic Characterization of Bayesian Updating," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    8. Bachmann, Kremena, 2024. "Do you have a choice?: Implications for belief updating and the disposition effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    9. Charness, Gary & Dave, Chetan, 2017. "Confirmation bias with motivated beliefs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-23.
    10. Robalo, Pedro & Sayag, Rei, 2018. "Paying is believing: The effect of costly information on Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 114-125.
    11. Pedro Robalo & Rei S. Sayag, 2012. "Information at a Cost: A Lab Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-143/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Nunnari, Salvatore & Zapal, Jan, 2016. "Gambler's fallacy and imperfect best response in legislative bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 275-294.
    13. Anja Achtziger & Carlos Alós-Ferrer, 2014. "Fast or Rational? A Response-Times Study of Bayesian Updating," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 923-938, April.
    14. Benjamin Enke & Florian Zimmermann, 2019. "Correlation Neglect in Belief Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 313-332.
    15. Jason Shachat & Anand Srinivasan, 2022. "Informational Price Cascades and Non-Aggregation of Asymmetric Information in Experimental Asset Markets," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 388-407, November.
    16. Chen Lian & Yueran Ma & Carmen Wang, 2019. "Low Interest Rates and Risk-Taking: Evidence from Individual Investment Decisions," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(6), pages 2107-2148.
    17. Ganguly, Ananda R & Kagel, John H & Moser, Donald V, 2000. "Do Asset Market Prices Reflect Traders' Judgment Biases?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 219-245, May.
    18. Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan K. & Zhang, Ping, 2004. "Asset prices and informed traders' abilities: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(7), pages 609-626, October.
    19. Albrecht, Konstanze & von Essen, Emma & Parys, Juliane & Szech, Nora, 2013. "Updating, self-confidence, and discrimination," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 144-169.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:91-105 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. David M. Frankel, 2008. "Adaptive Expectations And Stock Market Crashes," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 595-619, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dur:durham:2007_09. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tatiana Damjanovic (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deduruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.